Posted
by
Soulskill
on Saturday October 13, 2012 @07:04PM
from the i-can-tell-by-the-pixels dept.

An article at The Verge discusses a new exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art which traces the history of photo manipulation, starting in the mid-1800s. Early photographers used simple techniques like painting on their negatives or simply forming a composite image from many painstakingly framed shots. That period of time even had its own approximation of modern memes: "A large number of prints from that era — featuring decapitated subjects holding, juggling, or otherwise posing with their own heads — might be seen as the lolcats of their day, owing to an alluringly macabre and widespread fascination with parlour tricks and stage magic." However, lying with pictures really took off when business and government figured out how effective it could be as a tool for propaganda. The exhibit has many examples, such as President Ulysses S. Grant's head superimposed onto a soldier's body and a different background, or another of Joseph Goebbels removed from a photo of a party. The article likens these manipulations to more recent situations like the faked pictures of Osama Bin Laden's corpse, and often-hilarious altered ads featured on Photoshop Disasters. The article ends with a quote from photographer Jerry Uelsmann: "Let us not delude ourselves by the seemingly scientific nature of the darkroom ritual. It has been and always will be a form of alchemy."

Well, I imagine lying would happen in any group of moderately sentient beings with independent, conflicting interests and an ability to lie, no matter how rational they might be. And when lying is advantageous to the liar, then it can't be pathological.

Eh, the original poster saw lying as some sort of deep imperfection in humanity. I just pointed out that lying would be present (and indeed, lying and other social tools of deception show up in other intelligent species on Earth) for anything that has certain basic qualities like humans.

The problem with racists like you is that you cannot, or refuse to, differentiate culture from race. When a white guy does something bad, it reflects on him. But when a black guy does something bad, you saddle the entire race with blame for that individual's actions.

Of course tests can be culturally biased. Imagine giving a test written in England with UK idioms to kids from Montana. They aren't going to know what those idioms mean. That's the problem.

If you correct for socioeconomics, those differences disappear. In the US, the tests are biased toward the middle class and upper classes. They are culturally biased against poor people and the different ways intelligence manifests itself in those circumstances.

Of course tests can be culturally biased. Imagine giving a test written in England with UK idioms to kids from Montana. They aren't going to know what those idioms mean. That's the problem.

But the Blacks in question aren't from another country (despite their insistence in being called "African-Americans"- exactly where is "Africa-America"??)- they are from the same country and therefore should know the same stuff.

I'm quite sure it's been done, images are too valuable NOT to fake. A low-resolution digital image of a member of parliament having sex with a collie would be powerful blackmail material, especially if accompanied by a whispering campaign. Processing could be done in Brazil or Russia or Sri Lanka, and even if they took six months altering one pixel at a time it could be completely affordable. Information on an upcoming vote or classified data concerning an international treaty negotiation could make an i

Photographers and developers definitely "photo-shopped" images in the dark-room well before the software named "Photoshop" existed. In fact, this history of photo-manipulation in the dark-room or in front of the lens is exactly what this whole topic is about: photo-shopping and photo-manipulation in the early days...

I have great respect for national security, and I know I may have harshly ridiculed a likely candidate for Mother of the Year, but I figure it fair enough to retort theater with theater, especially since I became a terrorist for my interest in Ron Paul [slashdot.org] and very little of much of anything makes much since since.

Manipulation--whether in the darkroom or with a computer--is only one of the ways images can mislead. Scenes may be staged. Even when they are not, framing an image in the viewfinder and deciding when to release the shutter determine what small bit of reality is rendered. It may or may not be an honest, representative sample. Every photographer knows that you don't need Photoshop to lie with a camera.

Flash: Photographers have been manipulating images since before photoshop. Photography is an art; and unless you are claiming to be doing photojournalism, where accuracy is important, adjusting an image to capture what you want to convey is part of the process. it's no more lying than the painter who leaves out things in a landscape or adds details to make a picture more appealing. It's the ability to compose a shot, get the lighting right, and then work darkroom magic to get it perfect is what separates a photographer from someone with a camera.

Of course, photos can be manipulated to deceive as well; it's all a matter of intent.

Photography is an art; and unless you are claiming to be doing photojournalism, where accuracy is important, adjusting an image to capture what you want to convey is part of the process.

Above is true but does not go far enough, it is not the whole truth. Even in photojournalism and perfectly accurate photos, images can and should be composed in the viewfinder and diddled as needed in processing to best convey what the photographer feels is important.

The only truly accurate photos are the forensic ones taken at crime scenes, those of OR-7 when he trips a shutter release during his search for a girl friend, and those from the security cameras at your favorite store. Oh, some scientific phot

The famously creepy portrait of Stalin and Lenin was also in the exhibit:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/740931/thumbs/o-STALIN-570.jpg [huffpost.com]
Stalin actually faked a lot of history. He lied himself to the top, but started as a simple thief and bagger.
One can dismiss the idea, but not the effect.

I remember when Olly Stone released this - some folks mentioned that if the version of history is seen, it tends to remembered as real, rather than what really happened. (Not saying that JFK was/wasn't killed by a conspiracy - that's all besides the point).